Chrestman v. Russell

• Decision Date: 16 December 1895
• Citation: 73 Miss. 452,18 So. 656
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: S. J. CHRESTMAN v. P. B. RUSSELL

18 So. 656

73 Miss. 452

S. J. CHRESTMAN v. P. B. RUSSELL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 16, 1895

FROM the circuit court of the second district of Coahoma county HON. R. W. WILLIAMSON, Judge.

The appellee, in his declaration, after alleging that the appellant had enticed away his tenant and laborer, Joe Mathews, before the expiration of his contract, averred that Mathews, was indebted to him, by reason of said contract, in the sum of $ 102.85, and that he was deprived of the services, advantages, and profit of Mathews and of the said $ 102.85, by reason of the said breach of contract; wherefore he had been damaged to the amount of $ 125, and sued for double that sum. The appellant plead the general issue, and on the trial, the following instruction, among others, was granted at the instance of the appellee:

"1. The court instructs the jury that, in considering damages defendant is liable for all the indebtedness of Mathews growing out of the contract with Russell, for all the reasonable expenses that Russell was at in completing the duties of Mathews, in gathering the remainder of the cotton crop, and, if they find damages, it must be in double the amount sustained by Russell in the breach of the contract by Mathews."

The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment against appellant for $ 125, and, his motion for a new trial having been overruled, he appealed.

Reversed and remanded.

Jno. W. D. Cutrer, for appellant.

Under no state of facts could the first instruction granted to the plaintiff be treated as free from the fatal objection that it directs the jury that bare evidence of an indebtedness by Mathews, and of expenses incurred by the plaintiff, shall have and be given such full and sufficient weight as to induce a finding that such indebtedness and expenses necessarily resulted in damages within the contemplation of law, recoverable by appellee in the case at bar. Such damages are not necessarily within § 1068 of the code of 1892. The tenant may have worked the leased premises faithfully; he may have gathered and housed the entire crop, except an unimportant fragment; his total earning and the proceeds of all his crops may have been applied to and proved insufficient to liquidate his indebtedness for supplies, or other indebtedness growing out of the contractual relationship, yet, under the rule laid down by the court, a third person employing the renter under these circumstances before the expiration of the time for which he had contracted, would become liable to the former employer, among other things, for all the indebtedness growing out of the contract; and not only so liable, but liable in double the amount of such indebtedness. It is certain that, in such case, the landlord would suffer a loss. It is equally certain that, among wrongdoers, there can be no apportionment of the damages, and that each is liable for all the damages growing out of the wrongful employment of the contracted laborer, as is stated in Armistead v. Chatters, 71 Miss. 509; but there are losses which men must bear without relief. The unfortunate laborer would be liable in assumpsit upon the debt, but it cannot be said that a third person who...